Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
Author Message
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #41
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-24-2017 04:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  they fabricate unmeasureable/intangible benefits that they assert are greater than the very real tangible measureable dollar deficits.

What tangible "student interest" metric??

How about student pride? Alumni pride? Marketing effect for the university?


And yet you claim to understand that there are externality benefits, then turn around and deny their existence. Which is it?
03-24-2017 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Insane_Baboon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,653
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 52
I Root For: VT & UCF
Location:
Post: #42
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-24-2017 11:57 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(03-24-2017 11:16 AM)TerryD Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 10:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you are a university president and I gave you these options

1. Athletic department spends a bit more than it brings in and requires transfers of university revenue (direct or via student fee) in order to make budget.
2. Athletic department spends less than it brings in and transfers profit to fund the operations of the university.

Which would you choose?

Answer is simple. You choose option 1.
Why would you choose it? In option 1, the AD needs your support to do what he/she wishes to do. Choose option 2 and suddenly there may be a last minute expense that can't be avoided if the AD is displeased.


No president who understands the politics of it all is putting their AD in a position to have control over what they do.


Notre Dame picked Option #2 a long time ago.

The athletic department transfers its profits into the general fund of the university and have been doing so since at least 1991, when it first signed its NBC contract.

From 1991:

"Notre Dame gains $38 million, which it plans to distribute to the general scholarship fund, not just to the athletic department."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-...e-football


From 1993:


"So how does all this get paid for? Notre Dame is close to unique in that the net revenue from the athletic department goes to the school's general fund. All bowl money and a large amount of the NBC-generated television income goes toward academic scholarships.

"The last two years, among bowl money, the NBC contract and licensing and marketing," said Beauchamp, "we've increased our endowment for scholarships by close to $18 million."

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-11/s...tre-dame/2


From 2010:


Here is a good description on how (and how much) ND athletics transfers to the academic side from a 2010 book on money in college athletics:

https://books.google.com/books?id=GG4u3R...ps&f=false



From 2013:

"Notre Dame plans to continue using revenues from the contract to fund the school's financial-aid endowment for the general student body, not including athletes. The school said that since 1991 (this is a 2013 article), about 6,300 undergraduates have received nearly $80 million in aid from revenue generated through the NBC contract.

Notre Dame also uses NBC revenues to endow doctoral fellowships in its graduate school and MBA scholarships in its Mendoza College of Business.
"

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...-deal-2025


So, I think that there are many obvious benefits to having an athletic department make a profit, provided that it doesn't just spend it all on itself while continuing to collect student fees and other subsidies.

I don't see any real upside to a college athletic program that loses money consistently.

That's great that Notre Dame does that, and I'm sure the students as well as the parents appreciate it too. While option 1 may be a sad reality for many schools, I can think of a number of P5 schools that operate in the black that can and should do this and it's a real shame that they don't. I'm thinking of Texas, Texas A&M, Alabama, Florida, Florida State, and even my own Georgia Bulldogs for sure.

Don't just assume those athletics programs don't give back to the universities.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Report-10-athl...s-43162535

Texas ($37.1 million transferred to education; $0 total subsidy)
Ohio State ($36.2 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Alabama ($25.4 million transferred; $23 million subsidy)
Florida ($25.2 million transferred; $17.9 million subsidy)
LSU ($19 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Oklahoma ($11.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Nebraska ($9.7 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Kentucky ($8.1 million transferred; $3.4 million subsidy)
Michigan ($7.2 million transferred; $1 million subsidy)
Purdue ($4.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2017 08:35 PM by Insane_Baboon.)
03-24-2017 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #43
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-24-2017 08:33 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  
(03-24-2017 11:57 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(03-24-2017 11:16 AM)TerryD Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 10:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you are a university president and I gave you these options

1. Athletic department spends a bit more than it brings in and requires transfers of university revenue (direct or via student fee) in order to make budget.
2. Athletic department spends less than it brings in and transfers profit to fund the operations of the university.

Which would you choose?

Answer is simple. You choose option 1.
Why would you choose it? In option 1, the AD needs your support to do what he/she wishes to do. Choose option 2 and suddenly there may be a last minute expense that can't be avoided if the AD is displeased.


No president who understands the politics of it all is putting their AD in a position to have control over what they do.


Notre Dame picked Option #2 a long time ago.

The athletic department transfers its profits into the general fund of the university and have been doing so since at least 1991, when it first signed its NBC contract.

From 1991:

"Notre Dame gains $38 million, which it plans to distribute to the general scholarship fund, not just to the athletic department."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-...e-football


From 1993:


"So how does all this get paid for? Notre Dame is close to unique in that the net revenue from the athletic department goes to the school's general fund. All bowl money and a large amount of the NBC-generated television income goes toward academic scholarships.

"The last two years, among bowl money, the NBC contract and licensing and marketing," said Beauchamp, "we've increased our endowment for scholarships by close to $18 million."

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-11/s...tre-dame/2


From 2010:


Here is a good description on how (and how much) ND athletics transfers to the academic side from a 2010 book on money in college athletics:

https://books.google.com/books?id=GG4u3R...ps&f=false



From 2013:

"Notre Dame plans to continue using revenues from the contract to fund the school's financial-aid endowment for the general student body, not including athletes. The school said that since 1991 (this is a 2013 article), about 6,300 undergraduates have received nearly $80 million in aid from revenue generated through the NBC contract.

Notre Dame also uses NBC revenues to endow doctoral fellowships in its graduate school and MBA scholarships in its Mendoza College of Business.
"

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...-deal-2025


So, I think that there are many obvious benefits to having an athletic department make a profit, provided that it doesn't just spend it all on itself while continuing to collect student fees and other subsidies.

I don't see any real upside to a college athletic program that loses money consistently.

That's great that Notre Dame does that, and I'm sure the students as well as the parents appreciate it too. While option 1 may be a sad reality for many schools, I can think of a number of P5 schools that operate in the black that can and should do this and it's a real shame that they don't. I'm thinking of Texas, Texas A&M, Alabama, Florida, Florida State, and even my own Georgia Bulldogs for sure.

Don't just assume those athletics programs don't give back to the universities.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Report-10-athl...s-43162535

Texas ($37.1 million transferred to education; $0 total subsidy)
Ohio State ($36.2 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Alabama ($25.4 million transferred; $23 million subsidy)
Florida ($25.2 million transferred; $17.9 million subsidy)
LSU ($19 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Oklahoma ($11.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Nebraska ($9.7 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Kentucky ($8.1 million transferred; $3.4 million subsidy)
Michigan ($7.2 million transferred; $1 million subsidy)
Purdue ($4.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)

It's astonishing to me that Alabama doesn't give more back. They probably give more than a net $2.4 million - I'm sure accounting is hiding a lot - but still...
03-24-2017 11:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,640
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #44
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-24-2017 05:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(03-24-2017 04:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  they fabricate unmeasureable/intangible benefits that they assert are greater than the very real tangible measureable dollar deficits.

What tangible "student interest" metric??

How about student pride? Alumni pride? Marketing effect for the university?


And yet you claim to understand that there are externality benefits, then turn around and deny their existence. Which is it?

Which is it? You're the one who is claiming these 'externality' benefits ensure that just about 100% of D1 athletic programs provide net value added to their universities, without any evidence to back that claim up with.
03-24-2017 11:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #45
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-24-2017 11:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  without any evidence to back that claim up with.

What evidence would you accept, and not hand-waive away as "made up"??
03-25-2017 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,640
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #46
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-25-2017 01:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(03-24-2017 11:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  without any evidence to back that claim up with.

What evidence would you accept, and not hand-waive away as "made up"??

I don't hand-wave. It's the same standard of evidence for anything - some apparent connection with reality.

I have no idea why you think "nearly 100%" of D1 schools are getting a positive return on their athletic investment. You've presented no evidence of any kind for that.

Given that we do know that many of those schools are formally deep in the red (sans subsidies) athletically, the burden is on you.
03-25-2017 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #47
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-25-2017 03:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  the burden is on you.

You posited that athletic depts not providing a net positive benefit should be shut down.

None are being shut down.


That shows either:
- those depts all have the evidence proving that they are providing a net positive benefit
- your hypothesis is invalid


Either works for me.



In other words, if it were as simple and easy as you make it out to be, AD would be shutting down left and right.
(This post was last modified: 03-25-2017 05:24 PM by MplsBison.)
03-25-2017 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,640
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #48
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-25-2017 05:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(03-25-2017 03:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  the burden is on you.

You posited that athletic depts not providing a net positive benefit should be shut down.

None are being shut down.


That shows either:
- those depts all have the evidence proving that they are providing a net positive benefit
- your hypothesis is invalid

My hypo would be invalid if i was predicting departments *would* be shut down, but I didn't. I said "should".

There are other options than the first you list. One is that schools falsely assume that D1 athletics creates returns that are positive without evidence to support it.

Another is that politicians, boosters, and other powerful figures value athletics over academics so insist on having 'big time' programs even if they lose money.

Lots of possibilities, but none work for you. There's no evidence that the intangible benefits outweigh the tangible costs for most D1 schools, much less 100% of them.
03-25-2017 05:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #49
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-25-2017 05:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I said "should".

Well in that case, almost 100% of ADs disagree with you.


(03-25-2017 05:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  There's no evidence that the intangible benefits outweigh the tangible costs for most D1 schools

Again, how is it possible to obtain evidence of intangible benefits?
03-26-2017 09:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,655
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 84
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #50
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-26-2017 09:59 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(03-25-2017 05:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I said "should".

Well in that case, almost 100% of ADs disagree with you.

This is like saying directors of companies or agencies receiving subsidies to operate (take your pick of any, be they Planned Parenthood, Tesla/Elon Musk, Solyndra, or any defense contractor or alphabet agency) disagree with somebody saying they shouldn't be subsidized. They have a personal financial benefit in the subsidy. Can you say COI?

(03-26-2017 09:59 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(03-25-2017 05:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  There's no evidence that the intangible benefits outweigh the tangible costs for most D1 schools

Again, how is it possible to obtain evidence of intangible benefits?

Comparisons. I suggest you look at the California State system and the budgets and enrollments and donations for the school and for athletics. See what the difference is in playing at each level. In California enrollment is pretty much a non-issue as all campuses in both the UC and CSU systems are at or beyond capacity. Athletic participation plays no part. But you can check out the costs differences and donation differences for very similar campuses. Four good schools to compare are Cal State Fullerton, Cal State Long Beach, Cal State Sacramento, and San Jose State. All similar size, all at capacity, two play D1 Basketball, one plays FCS, one plays FBS. I would also suggest examining Cal Poly Pomona and Cal State Los Angeles who play at D-II level. What you will see is a rise in deficits at each level up. These are all urban/suburban schools in the same system with the same admission criteria.

If you want to compare other schools in other states, I suggest you do several, as there are poster children for shutting down and for upgrading- many more of the former than latter.

Ohio is another good system to compare. This is a state with "negative" demographics, a situation in many states, where there are fewer qualified students graduating from High School than in the past.

The data is there, it's up to you to examine it, organize it and present it. It woudl be best to present it all with sources than to cherry pick, as you will get clobbered on cross for that
(This post was last modified: 03-27-2017 11:19 AM by Stugray2.)
03-26-2017 11:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,640
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #51
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-26-2017 09:59 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(03-25-2017 05:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I said "should".

Well in that case, almost 100% of ADs disagree with you.


(03-25-2017 05:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  There's no evidence that the intangible benefits outweigh the tangible costs for most D1 schools

Again, how is it possible to obtain evidence of intangible benefits?

Of course ADs disagree, as their jobs/careers depend on an irrational attachment by universities to athletics.

And you must believe in the tooth fairy, right? After all, we can't obtain evidence that it doesn't exist, and if we can't do that then we must assume it exists, just as you assume that intangible benefits of athletics outweighs tangible costs.

FWIW, intangible factors can sometimes be measured indirectly.

E.g., we could survey alumni and ask them whether they anticipate reducing donations to the university if athletics were scaled back to a no-subsidy basis, etc.
(This post was last modified: 03-27-2017 12:14 AM by quo vadis.)
03-27-2017 12:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,464
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 555
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #52
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-24-2017 11:17 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(03-24-2017 08:33 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  Don't just assume those athletics programs don't give back to the universities.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Report-10-athl...s-43162535

Texas ($37.1 million transferred to education; $0 total subsidy)
Ohio State ($36.2 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Alabama ($25.4 million transferred; $23 million subsidy)
Florida ($25.2 million transferred; $17.9 million subsidy)
LSU ($19 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Oklahoma ($11.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Nebraska ($9.7 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Kentucky ($8.1 million transferred; $3.4 million subsidy)
Michigan ($7.2 million transferred; $1 million subsidy)
Purdue ($4.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)

It's astonishing to me that Alabama doesn't give more back. They probably give more than a net $2.4 million - I'm sure accounting is hiding a lot - but still...

Don't underestimate how much Alabama spends on football. They probably spend more than any other school in the country.
03-27-2017 06:30 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,640
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #53
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-27-2017 06:30 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(03-24-2017 11:17 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(03-24-2017 08:33 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  Don't just assume those athletics programs don't give back to the universities.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Report-10-athl...s-43162535

Texas ($37.1 million transferred to education; $0 total subsidy)
Ohio State ($36.2 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Alabama ($25.4 million transferred; $23 million subsidy)
Florida ($25.2 million transferred; $17.9 million subsidy)
LSU ($19 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Oklahoma ($11.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Nebraska ($9.7 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Kentucky ($8.1 million transferred; $3.4 million subsidy)
Michigan ($7.2 million transferred; $1 million subsidy)
Purdue ($4.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)

It's astonishing to me that Alabama doesn't give more back. They probably give more than a net $2.4 million - I'm sure accounting is hiding a lot - but still...

Don't underestimate how much Alabama spends on football. They probably spend more than any other school in the country.

Yes they do. Still, considering just their football program, in 2016 it brought in about $50 million more than they spent on it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer...860f153243
(This post was last modified: 03-27-2017 08:32 AM by quo vadis.)
03-27-2017 08:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,224
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 186
I Root For: UC
Location: Normal, IL & Cincy
Post: #54
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-24-2017 08:33 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  Don't just assume those athletics programs don't give back to the universities.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Report-10-athl...s-43162535

Texas ($37.1 million transferred to education; $0 total subsidy)
Ohio State ($36.2 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Alabama ($25.4 million transferred; $23 million subsidy)
Florida ($25.2 million transferred; $17.9 million subsidy)
LSU ($19 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Oklahoma ($11.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Nebraska ($9.7 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Kentucky ($8.1 million transferred; $3.4 million subsidy)
Michigan ($7.2 million transferred; $1 million subsidy)
Purdue ($4.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)


When other independent divisions of the university (such as real estate, the bookstore, or a patent generated by a professor) turn a profit, the university is required to spin it off as a for-profit company so that it pays taxes.

My wife's last job was at a materials testing lab that used to be a part of Purdue. Purdue's accountants required the university to spin it off because it started to turn a regular profit. They didn't want to jeopardize the university's tax status.

Turning a profit can be justified if it's for a nonprofit purpose (such as education). For example, Purdue's endowment owns over 25% of the farmland in Tippecanoe County. This is a huge, revenue producing asset, but they justify it as part of their land-grant research mission.

Does anyone know how athletics get around this? Is it claimed to be an educational activity?
03-27-2017 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Online
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 6,779
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 427
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #55
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-27-2017 03:55 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(03-24-2017 08:33 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  Don't just assume those athletics programs don't give back to the universities.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Report-10-athl...s-43162535

Texas ($37.1 million transferred to education; $0 total subsidy)
Ohio State ($36.2 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Alabama ($25.4 million transferred; $23 million subsidy)
Florida ($25.2 million transferred; $17.9 million subsidy)
LSU ($19 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Oklahoma ($11.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Nebraska ($9.7 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Kentucky ($8.1 million transferred; $3.4 million subsidy)
Michigan ($7.2 million transferred; $1 million subsidy)
Purdue ($4.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)


When other independent divisions of the university (such as real estate, the bookstore, or a patent generated by a professor) turn a profit, the university is required to spin it off as a for-profit company so that it pays taxes.

My wife's last job was at a materials testing lab that used to be a part of Purdue. Purdue's accountants required the university to spin it off because it started to turn a regular profit. They didn't want to jeopardize the university's tax status.

Turning a profit can be justified if it's for a nonprofit purpose (such as education). For example, Purdue's endowment owns over 25% of the farmland in Tippecanoe County. This is a huge, revenue producing asset, but they justify it as part of their land-grant research mission.

Does anyone know how athletics get around this? Is it claimed to be an educational activity?

It's not the profit that's the problem. Most organizations hope to operate in the black. The distinction is that if a nonprofit or a not for profit veers away from their stated mission into commercial territory and makes money then it loses the tax exempt protection. I don't think they necessarily need to spin it off but they do have to report it and pay taxes. Not necessarily my area of expertise so someone correct me if I'm wrong. "Amateur Athletics" gets a special carve out in the code that allows them to operate not only as a nonprofit without paying tax on income but they enjoy 501c3 status allowing donations to these organizations to be tax deductible. Usually that's reserved for charitable, religious and educational missions.
03-27-2017 04:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,891
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 589
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #56
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-27-2017 04:18 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-27-2017 03:55 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(03-24-2017 08:33 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  Don't just assume those athletics programs don't give back to the universities.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Report-10-athl...s-43162535

Texas ($37.1 million transferred to education; $0 total subsidy)
Ohio State ($36.2 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Alabama ($25.4 million transferred; $23 million subsidy)
Florida ($25.2 million transferred; $17.9 million subsidy)
LSU ($19 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Oklahoma ($11.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Nebraska ($9.7 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Kentucky ($8.1 million transferred; $3.4 million subsidy)
Michigan ($7.2 million transferred; $1 million subsidy)
Purdue ($4.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)


When other independent divisions of the university (such as real estate, the bookstore, or a patent generated by a professor) turn a profit, the university is required to spin it off as a for-profit company so that it pays taxes.

My wife's last job was at a materials testing lab that used to be a part of Purdue. Purdue's accountants required the university to spin it off because it started to turn a regular profit. They didn't want to jeopardize the university's tax status.

Turning a profit can be justified if it's for a nonprofit purpose (such as education). For example, Purdue's endowment owns over 25% of the farmland in Tippecanoe County. This is a huge, revenue producing asset, but they justify it as part of their land-grant research mission.

Does anyone know how athletics get around this? Is it claimed to be an educational activity?

It's not the profit that's the problem. Most organizations hope to operate in the black. The distinction is that if a nonprofit or a not for profit veers away from their stated mission into commercial territory and makes money then it loses the tax exempt protection. I don't think they necessarily need to spin it off but they do have to report it and pay taxes. Not necessarily my area of expertise so someone correct me if I'm wrong. "Amateur Athletics" gets a special carve out in the code that allows them to operate not only as a nonprofit without paying tax on income but they enjoy 501c3 status allowing donations to these organizations to be tax deductible. Usually that's reserved for charitable, religious and educational missions.

#1 Its part of their "mission." Its "student-athletes."
#2 Its incidental to the money the schools generate in total.
03-27-2017 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Online
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 6,779
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 427
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #57
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-27-2017 05:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-27-2017 04:18 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-27-2017 03:55 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(03-24-2017 08:33 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  Don't just assume those athletics programs don't give back to the universities.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Report-10-athl...s-43162535

Texas ($37.1 million transferred to education; $0 total subsidy)
Ohio State ($36.2 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Alabama ($25.4 million transferred; $23 million subsidy)
Florida ($25.2 million transferred; $17.9 million subsidy)
LSU ($19 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Oklahoma ($11.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Nebraska ($9.7 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)
Kentucky ($8.1 million transferred; $3.4 million subsidy)
Michigan ($7.2 million transferred; $1 million subsidy)
Purdue ($4.1 million transferred; $0 total subsidy)


When other independent divisions of the university (such as real estate, the bookstore, or a patent generated by a professor) turn a profit, the university is required to spin it off as a for-profit company so that it pays taxes.

My wife's last job was at a materials testing lab that used to be a part of Purdue. Purdue's accountants required the university to spin it off because it started to turn a regular profit. They didn't want to jeopardize the university's tax status.

Turning a profit can be justified if it's for a nonprofit purpose (such as education). For example, Purdue's endowment owns over 25% of the farmland in Tippecanoe County. This is a huge, revenue producing asset, but they justify it as part of their land-grant research mission.

Does anyone know how athletics get around this? Is it claimed to be an educational activity?

It's not the profit that's the problem. Most organizations hope to operate in the black. The distinction is that if a nonprofit or a not for profit veers away from their stated mission into commercial territory and makes money then it loses the tax exempt protection. I don't think they necessarily need to spin it off but they do have to report it and pay taxes. Not necessarily my area of expertise so someone correct me if I'm wrong. "Amateur Athletics" gets a special carve out in the code that allows them to operate not only as a nonprofit without paying tax on income but they enjoy 501c3 status allowing donations to these organizations to be tax deductible. Usually that's reserved for charitable, religious and educational missions.

#1 Its part of their "mission." Its "student-athletes."
#2 Its incidental to the money the schools generate in total.

Well athletic department revenues are obviously not taxable but I think it's due to a specific carve out in the tax code for amateur athletics. I think it'd be tough to make the argument that sports are a part of a university's goal of education. Again, I'm not an expert on nonprofits or what constitutes unrelated business income but I do know that it doesn't matter if the AD is "profitable".
03-27-2017 10:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #58
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-26-2017 11:54 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  They have a personal financial benefit in the subsidy.

Of course colleges have a financial benefit to having an athletic dept. Otherwise, almost no schools in the country would have athletic depts.

(when I said "AD", I meant athletic dept, not athletic director)

(03-26-2017 11:54 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The data is there

It's not there, that's the point.

Show me the data that measures the increase in alumni pride in their alma mater, for the Univ of Minnesota, because of having athletics that compete well (in some sports).


(03-27-2017 12:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Of course ADs disagree, as their jobs/careers

I was referring to athletic depts, when I used the abbreviation "AD". Sorry for the confusion.

(03-27-2017 12:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  we could survey alumni and ask them whether they anticipate reducing donations to the university if athletics were scaled back to a no-subsidy basis, etc.

Donations are tangible.

Again, I'm talking intangible. Alumni pride, for example.

If having athletics that compete well increases alumni pride in their alma mater, that justifies its existence, even though it needs a subsidy.
03-29-2017 07:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,655
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 84
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #59
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
The data is available online from the Department of Education.

For school enrollment at California schools it it on their web sites.

I am not your research assistant. Do your own work.
03-30-2017 12:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #60
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-30-2017 12:47 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The data is available online from the Department of Education.

For school enrollment at California schools it it on their web sites.

None of these data have anything to do with what is being discussed.
03-30-2017 08:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.